 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Yes, it did come up on another thread. Thredbo put in a big snowmaking system many years ago in an initial gambit to increase their snowcover. I believe the problem is more to do with rising temperatures than lack of precipitation. The Snowy Mountains of New South Wales could be higher and snowier, but they're having more luck than Scotland.
When conditions are favourable Thredbo has some worthwhile skiing, BTW. You can easily visit the bizarre capital city of Canberra on the way down from Sydney, so it's a worthwhile trip all round.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
oh, i've really buggered this thread up. got pm-ed to say that my original post was a repeat of something already discussed. tried to delete it, but couldn't. so transformed it into a link to another article i'd just come across - but by then DG had chipped in. look, i'm an idiot. sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
It's still an interesting article though:
"Despite all this scientific evidence, I still wasn't prepared for the sight that confronted me when I finally reached the spot where my father had stood back in 1980...
For the first few seconds I couldn't speak. Then I shouted to Tim. "It's gone!" He hadn't even realised we were in the same place, and studied the old photo. "Bloody hell. That's unbelievable." I could scarcely believe my eyes either. The lake was the same - if rather larger, probably because of the extra meltwater - and the rock walls encircling the whole arena just as sheer: but the mass of ice and snow that previously dominated the scene had melted completely away, leaving a few mounds of dark-red grit, streaked white with recently-fallen avalanche debris."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
DavidS, It is an interesting article, but for a different reason than maybe you thought. Yet again there is the suggestion that the earth (geology and climate) is inherently static and that recent changes are bad (and probably man-made). But the history of the earth is full of gradual changes and one or two cataclysms: species come and species go, glaciers come and glaciers go. It is what happens.
I heard a story about a student asking passers-by on the street to sign a petition to stop a nearby building being demolished. One elderly lady when stopped refused with the comment: "When I was your age, young man, I was campagning to stop it being built in the first place!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Jonpim wrote: |
| [There is the suggestion that... recent changes are bad (and probably man-made)." |
I think there are good reasons to be nervous about changing climate, at least from the point of view of our species. After all, there's an awful number of us and we cannot know how sensitive our civilization will be to whatever changes may occur. From a planetary perspective, "species come and species go" - but I'm hoping that homo sapiens will stick around for a while...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DavidS, I think you might find this article interesting.
Homo Sapiens is about 100,000 years old and has survived abrupt climate changes in Europe over the last 50,000 years. It is not climate change itself we have to worry about (if we can influence it) but how mankind responds to it.
Thousands of years ago people just moved if the climate changed. There were few people and lots of free land. This is no longer the case. Land and resources such will become scarce in some areas and increase in others. The danger is war, not climate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| The danger is war, not climate |
Certainly if warming is in the process of taking place (for whatever reasons), leading to an inevitable rise in sea levels, the effect on the greater part of the world's population living at or near to sea level, the consequent forced migrations, famine, general chaos... doesn't bear thinking about. To me war and climate change in this context are inextricably linked. However none of us have sufficient evidence to dismiss the possibility that we may be in the process of accelerating the changes, which surely would add to the dangers involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Jonpim, Good point. Of course if you watch Discovery channel and it's mates enough you can be convinced of anything. I've seen several programmes suggesting that there was a very advanced civilization extant around 10,000 years ago which disappeared due to the great flood (last serious global warming). Extremely interesting. Perhaps we will mostly disappear too? Perhaps we'll all give up snow ski-ing and take to water ski-ing? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The thing is, I've never heard a climate scientist say that the cliamte is stable. In fact one of the main reasons why most climate researchers who have spoken about climate change think that it is so dangerous - purely because the climate is so unstable.
One old mate who work(ed) in the Hadley Centre reckoned it was like a river flood plain. At some point it will flood in a major way. This will happen. However if you cut down all the trees on the surrounding hills and have very efficient run-offs into that river, then you will increase the chances of a major flood and probably bring it about much sooner. This conversation occurred about nine or ten years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
When the gulf stream stops, as some have forecast, will we get more snow or will it just get colder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
steveb, from all I have read the answer seems to be Cold: yes; Snow: don't know. Here is an interesting article on ocean currents, gulf stream and mini ice ages.
It seems this has even got to the ears of Hollywood: a film of Gulf Stream shut down is due out in May, according to New Scientist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
not so cheerful news at all, esp. as it says that records snowfalls are fast disappearing. Just think how bad it would be in sparse years of snowfall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| foxreno.com wrote: |
| The trend is consistent with global warming, scientists say, though they're less sure of the consequences. The Pacific Northwest could become wetter or drier as weather patterns shift; Northern California could develop the desert Santa Ana winds that fed Southern California's record wildfires last fall -- or not. |
Let's face it: these Science-chappies have no idea of what is going to happen. They are all getting lots of wonderful publicity for their doom-laden forecasts, but my Aunty Flo could do just as well with tea-leaves.
I have recently come across an old copy of The Times dated Wednesday May 3rd 233 million BC where a world congress of leading dinosaurs was expressing alarm at the increasing loss of organic carbon to oil and gas deposits, and one leading Brontosaurus put forward the radical idea that this could lead to Global Cooling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
If the weather's anything like it was last August, the Bellecôte glacier (La Plagne) is unlikely to open this summer! (Panoramic view, scroll.....) (large file - 200K)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Jonpim, Have to say I don't quite follow your 'laissez faire' logic in this.... I mean, as a medical man, do you think it sensible for a person with a tendency to weight gain to carry on with a diet that includes an increasing number of Mars bars each day? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
I see Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist has said that Europe will be unable to sustain human life due to global warming caused by carbon-dioxide emissions within this century according to a story in the Independent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Thanks for the link PG, I must confess I was reading the paper in the local tabac.
David King has made some other fairly alarmist statements before and I note that French climatologists such as Eduard Bard don't seem to share his views.
However a friend is just back from business in China. He was extremely surprised how much it has changed since he was last there 5 years ago and talked of narrow streets now chocked with cars rather than bicycles. At present car sales are booming in China - it is one reason while steel and oil prices are going up. Just think what effect even 10% of the Chinese population owning cars will have...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
The scientific consensus is that human inputs of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere are causing a measurable warming effect. On top of this are overlaid a bunch of hypotheses (such as those mentioned by David King), which seem to be more for the consumption of the media than useful comment.
Personally I'm not sold on the idea of testing the effects of global warming by doing the experiment...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professor Sir David King (the Government's chief scientist) is meant to have said:
"the Earth was entering the "first hot period" for 60 million years, when there was no ice on the planet and "the rest of the globe could not sustain human life".
Hot period? Possibly. Unable to sustain human life? Balderdash.
This is not the first time scientists have compared now to when the dinosaurs became extinct. Dr Paul Pearson of the University of Bristol and Professor Martin Palmer, of Imperial College, London, reported similar findings in Nature in 2000.
CO2 levels go up and down throughout earth's history, but mankind seems to have added to recent changes, as shown in this article .
Conclusion so far? CO2 is definitely rising, but the world continued to sustain life 60 million years ago with high CO2 levels (or we wouldn't be here now) and there is no reason to think it will not do the same now.
What is not clear is the precise relationhip of CO2 to temperature. Some of the doubts are expressed here . Methane also has important effects, and in the far distant past other gases had major impact. Sea levels have also varied hugely over the last 500 million years.
This is a complicated subject. Newspapers understandably use it to grab headlines and sell copy. Government advisors should know better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonpim, The fact that we are by no means sure that we can predict the precise consequences of our giving the warming process a helping hand isn't really in dispute... I think most are aware, at least to an extent, of the multiplicity of factors involved.
What is unclear to me, (think I asked you this before!  ), is why anyone might think that a degree of unverifiability should justify inaction?
The 'doubts' expressed by Martin Palmer, in the 'Science' article you mention above, only refer to the extent of the effect of an increase in CO2, not whether the effect exists.
I have already suggested a medical analogy, but the Mars bars may have given you indigestion  ! If someone has no choice but to relocate from Iceland to Provence, should they ask their architect to design them a house like this?.... or like this? Because you seem to be saying that, because the Gulf Stream could stop flowing at any given moment, you might as well build yourself a greenhouse to live in! Don't get me wrong, but I haven't yet understood whether your views are "wait and see, hope for the best".... or perhaps that you have good reason to believe that the general consensus on the 'greenhouse' effect of certain gases is based on unsubstantiated evidence, even faulty scientific thinking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
PG, you're a cruel man. I get the children to bed, I clear up and get ready for tomorrow, I pour a glass of wine and sit back to relax with snowHeads....
And you ask me to explain The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything. At one in the morning! Stuff the wine: I think I'll have a brandy.
I apologise for explaining myself so badly. I know where I stand, and I expect you to be telepathic. I mean: it's obvious, innit!
There are 2 aspects to this.
1. Climate: is it really The Prime Problem as many affluent governments insist it is?
And if you think it is, is CO2 the the prime mover of climate change, or is CO2 just one of many factors, or even: are CO2 changes just a by-product of other factors.
It is clear CO2 is not the only factor. Other important factors incude Milankovitch cycles and tectonic movement.
| Professor Martin Palmer wrote: |
| Our research indicates that plate tectonic movement of the continents and consequent reorganisation of ocean currents may have been responsible for the big climate changes of the last 43 million years |
His article in nature also: "appears to challenge the prevailing dogma that carbon dioxide is the key driver of climate change over long periods".
(this article from New Sientist gives a good background to global warming theory.).
So, should we do nothing? No, but so-called global warming must not be allowed to divert us form the real problem. In the film Wag the Dog a war is started to divert the public away from an embarassing problem. So:
2. Is all this fuss about Climate just a smokescreen for a far bigger problem?
I think the aswer is Yes. Global Warming and (for the USA) Terrorism are being used to divert us affluent and privileged away from Global Poverty. Governments know it is a vote loser as solving this problem requires us to lose our comfortable standard of living and make a few sacrifices.
I suggest you read Anup Shah.
Reducing poverty may help to solve terrorism.
Try out this tricky little teaser from Peter Singer
Meanwhile western governments are cutting back on aid to the poor.
I just think we have our priorities wrong.
(I'm off to bed)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonpim, Aha, a conspiracy theorist! If you're wrong though, today's poverty levels will almost seem like good living when compared to the 'Armageddon' of war, famine, mass migration, disease and natural disasters that would inevitably accompany accelerating climate change. Don't get me wrong, I agree that poverty is a huge problem. As a 30 year member of the WDM I could hardly do otherwise!
But I do think you are mistaken, at least to an extent. The phenomenon may be being used, as you suggest, to divert attention from more immediate issues, but the real question is whether, during a cyclical warming period, it makes sense to give the pendulum an extra shove by releasing ever-increasing quantities of infra-red radiation absorbing gases into the atmosphere. If the harbingers of doom are correct, those who undermine the global warming argument by disparaging the science involved will bear a big share of the responsibility for the lack of preventive action and the consequences we and our children will all have to live (or die) with. They really are 'playing with fire'!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
PG, I must confess I did not know what the WDM was. Well done in being a member. I was a member of GreenPeace once, but withdrew when I was informed of 2 guys in strange attire with French accents asking around for Monsieur Barcroft. I had to wear a disguise for nearly a year before I felt safe (paranoid - moi!?).
| I thought I would bring a bit of light humour to this duscussion when you wrote: |
| those who undermine the global warming argument by disparaging the science involved will bear a big share of the responsibility for the lack of preventive action and the consequences we and our children will all have to live (or die) with |
That is a real heavy load to lay on those of us questioning priorities.
Having waded in here as if I knew something about the subject, I thought I ought to actually read Kyoto. I wish I hadn't bothered. Please correct me if I have got his wrong:
1. Kyoto Convention : 188 countries have signed and ratified, but this just says "I will think about it"
2. Kyoto Protocol: a committment to actually do something, but only 94 countries have ratified this. The USA is not among them.
3. There is an amazing amount of wheeling and dealing possible within the Protocol: it seems capitalism has run riot, and countries can trade CO2 Emissions and Carbon Sinks. I wait with interest to see it quoted on Wall Street.
Call me a cynic if you want to, but I can only see governments going along with this if it i is economically advantageous for their country or a vote winner. It is likely to put taxes up: a vote loser. End of story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funny you should mention a French maid get-up PG, because I did try it. Unfortunately not very convincing, so it was back to the Bunny outfit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Jonpim, There was I thinking you were just a slightly over-self-medicating gas pusher and you gob-smack me with a cogent argument for the demise of civilisation as we know it.
I do side with Cassandra (PG) in the thought that for mankind to survive the next two millennia there will be a period when brother will kill and eat brother, but humans will survive. It is a question as to whether their ‘humanity’ will?
As for me? I’m ashamed as to what’s been done and not done in my name by the mad f*****s that have managed to con or buy their way into positions of authority. But I’m afraid that the ‘great unwashed’ will go on being ‘brain conditioned’ by media, education and remuneration systems promoted by Governance to maintain an easily manipulated voter base. I wonder how many of them consider the possibility of their grand children becoming cannon fodder or food?
The Kyoto Protocol was a ‘horse designed by a committee’ but it was a START and it required very little effort to meet the goals! The greed merchants that refuse to even go this far are the instigators of the next ‘LEE’ . . . as we’re now witnessing in Iraq!
Rant over, lets just stop the world and throw the b******s off!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Masque, Yes!
CO2 may well be a factor in climate change. As long as this is not disproved, we should heed this. Otherwise, we will not only be guilty of melting glaciers and falling rocks. We will be jeopardising our children's future, and today's crises will appear footling in comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Some (not all  ) may appreciate this Guardian article about the proponents of "fundagelism" the other side of the Pond!
| Quote: |
| The White House has recently been accused of inveighing (via Nasa) against the movie The Day After Tomorrow (out on May 28th) because it narrates the wrong apocalypse. One caused by man-made global warming, that is, rather than God's white-hot rage against sinners. The apocalypse depicted in Tim LaHaye's Left Behind books is, we assume, the US government-approved version. |
The Big Picture - Climate change too slow for Hollywood, too fast for the rest of us
Scientists Embrace Plot for 'Tomorrow'
Website of the film....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Okay, so who spends their time compiling a "rapture index"??
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Todd Strandberg, the second link is an interview with him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Okay, I'll rephrase the question.......why??
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
| "rapture index"??!! |
God Save America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The people mentioned in the article PG links to. The article doesn't mention it, but a number of evangelists have come up with the idea of the "rapture" from a couple of biblical passages. It drives their whole approach to the world and foreign policy.
As to "why", well why not? It's probaably made them very rich and beats working.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is global warming all bad? For example, might not vast areas of Siberia and Canada be opened up to agriculture and be far more hospitable for humans than now? Naturally, no snowheads (including me) could relish the prospect though.
Putting this element of self-interest to one side, I think the real question is whether to ration production of CO2 and accept the short/medium term economic consequences in the hope that global warming can be arrested, or carry on regardless but use equivalent resources to help people to adapt to the inevitable changes...or some combination of the two.
I've no idea what the answer should be, but I think it behoves people that tend to the former position to think about what personal sacrifices they would be prepared to make. Does anyone volunteer to cancel all their skiing trips next year? It could help prevent the Maldives from disappearing underwater...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
laundryman,
Scientists warn California's climate will be dramatically different in 20 years due to global warming, with extreme heat waves, more wildfires and floods, less water for endangered salmon, hydropower and irrigation, and 3-foot rises in sea levels. (San Francisco Chronicle)
German government report warns of "devastating" climate changes due to global warming, including flooding of the world's major cities such as London, New York, Shanghai and Tokyo, and potential "runaway" warming that renders the earth uninhabitable. (UK Independent)
Pentagon report warns of nuclear war, mega-droughts, famine, mass migrations and widespread rioting around the world by 2020 as abrupt climate change due to global warming causes massive disruption of the world's food and water supplies.
etc etc ..... But that's ok, should it happen, cos we can all go off and farm Alaska 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PG wrote: |
| German government report warns of "devastating" climate changes due to global warming, including flooding of the world's major cities such as London, New York, Shanghai and Tokyo, and potential "runaway" warming that renders the earth uninhabitable. (UK Independent) |
Tremendously good copy, I'm sure. Doubtless the newspapers of the time were predicting the demise of Amsterdam as the 17th Century mini-ice age drew to a close. Instead, the ever-resourceful Dutch adapted and got on with life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
